* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PRIEBEFactorsInfluencing2010POSTP - QMRO Home
Survey
Document related concepts
Schizoaffective disorder wikipedia , lookup
Emil Kraepelin wikipedia , lookup
Glossary of psychiatry wikipedia , lookup
Spectrum disorder wikipedia , lookup
Mental disorder wikipedia , lookup
Biology of depression wikipedia , lookup
Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Externalizing disorders wikipedia , lookup
Child psychopathology wikipedia , lookup
Eating disorders and memory wikipedia , lookup
Schizophrenia wikipedia , lookup
Dissociative identity disorder wikipedia , lookup
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders wikipedia , lookup
Causes of mental disorders wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Full title: Factors influencing subjective quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders: a pooled analysis Running title: Factors influencing SQOL: a pooled analysis Authors: Stefan Priebea, Ulrich Reininghausa, Rosemarie McCabea, Tom Burnsb, Mona Eklundc, Lars Hanssonc, Ulrich Junghand, Thomas Kallerte, Chijs van Nieuwenhuizenf, Mirella Ruggerig, Mike Sladeh, Duolao Wangi Institutional affiliation: a Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK b University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK c Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden d University Hospital of Psychiatry, Unit of Community Psychiatry, Bern, Switzerland e Clinic for Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Park Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany f Department of Tranzo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands g Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanita' Pubblica, Universita’di Verona, Verona, Italy h Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UK i London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Correspondence to: Stefan Priebe, Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London Postal address: Newham Centre for Mental Health, London E13 8SP, United Kingdom; email: [email protected] Word count (Abstract): 227 Word count (Text): 3,647 Abstract Subjective quality of life (SQOL) is an important outcome in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. However, there is only limited evidence on factors influencing SQOL, and little is known about whether the same factors influence SQOL in patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders. This study aimed to identify factors associated with SQOL and test whether these factors are equally important in schizophrenia and other disorders. For this we used a pooled data set obtained from 16 studies that had used either the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile or the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life for assessing SQOL. The sample comprised 3936 patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, and neurotic disorders. After controlling for confounding factors, within-subject clustering, and heterogeneity of findings across studies in linear mixed models, patients with schizophrenia had more favourable SQOL scores than those with mood and neurotic disorders. In all diagnostic groups, older patients, those in employment, and those with lower symptom scores had higher SQOL scores. Whilst the strength of the association between age and SQOL did not differ across diagnostic groups, symptom levels were more strongly associated with SQOL in neurotic than in mood disorders and schizophrenia. The association of employment and SQOL was stronger in mood and neurotic disorders than in schizophrenia. The findings may inform the use and interpretation of SQOL data for patients with schizophrenia. 2 Introduction Subjective quality of life (SQOL) has become a widely established patient-reported outcome in schizophrenia1. Whilst there is no consensus on the precise definition of SQOL, several scales for assessing SQOL are based on the approach of Lehman2 which considers SQOL as the patient’s satisfaction with life in general and with a number of major life domains. When using SQOL findings in research studies and in the evaluation of routine care, it is important to know which factors influence scores and need to be considered in the analysis and interpretation of data. Factors influencing SQOL in schizophrenia may be broadly grouped into socio-demographic and clinical ones1. Socio-demographic factors that have frequently been studied as potentially influential are age3-7, gender4, 5, 8-11, marital status4, 5, 12, level of education3, 13, and employment status3-5, 14-16. Several studies reported significant associations of some of these variables with SQOL3-10, 13. A recent meta-analysis17 however did not find robust evidence that such socio-demographic characteristics influence SQOL. There is more consistent evidence showing that higher symptom levels are associated with less favourable SQOL4, 5, 18-28. A meta-analysis29 found weak correlations between symptom levels and SQOL with a substantial heterogeneity across studies, whilst Vatne and Bjoerkly17 considered a meta-regression analysis inappropriate because of the heterogeneity of methodologies used in the relevant studies. Initially, SQOL indicators were used in psychiatry predominantly in samples with severe mental illnesses, most of whom were diagnosed as having schizophrenia. Over time, there has been increasing interest in examining SQOL also in other diagnostic groups30-32. Some studies found significant differences in SQOL between patients with schizophrenia and those with mood disorders33, others did not17, 34. When factors influencing SQOL in these groups were explored, similar socio-demographic and clinical factors were suggested as for patients with schizophrenia. However, the question as to whether the same factors influence SQOL in patients with schizophrenia and in other diagnostic groups has not been systematically investigated. Such evidence appears essential to assess whether research findings on SQOL from one diagnostic group can be generalised to others. This exploratory study aimed to identify factors influencing SQOL and test whether these factors differ between patients with schizophrenia and those with other mental disorders. For this, we conducted a pooled analysis using original data from different studies. Unlike a conventional meta-analysis, a pooled analysis considers not only studies but also individual patients as the unit of analysis. Such pooled analysis has several advantages as compared to 3 conventional meta-analytic techniques: it enables a more precise estimate of effects of influential factors; allows for the control of confounding factors including within-subject clustering and heterogeneity of findings across studies; reduces the effect of the heterogeneity arising from the aggregation of methodologically diverse studies by using the same statistical model; and makes it possible to test main effects as well as interactions, which is crucial for exploring whether factors have a similar influence in patients with schizophrenia and other diagnostic groups35, 36. Methods In a pooled analysis linear mixed models were applied to a large set of individual patient-level data from samples of patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, and neurotic disorders, using the mean SQOL score as the dependent variable. Sample The pooled data set was collected specifically for the purpose of the current study. Given the heterogeneity of measurement methods used to assess SQOL identified by systematic reviews and meta-analyses17, only data sets using either the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile (LQOLP)37 or its short version, the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)38 were considered for the pooled database. To identify relevant data sets we contacted experts in the field and conducted a literature search of academic databases. We aimed to use clear cut diagnostic categories with sufficient sample sizes of each category in the complex analysis. We therefore included only patients with documented diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizotypal, or delusional disorders (F2), mood disorders (F3), or neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders (F4) according to ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1993). Patients with less frequent and unclear diagnoses were excluded. If available another SQOL assessment, obtained for the same patients at a later point of time, were included in the study to achieve more precise estimates of effects by increasing the number of observations whilst controlling for confounding by within-subject clustering. For studies with more than two time points the first and last one were used to have long and similar periods of time between the two measurements. Measures Studies included into the pooled data set used either the LQOLP or MANSA for measuring SQOL. The LQOLP was theoretically based on Lehman’s approach for measuring SQOL2. LQOLP and MANSA contain items on patients’ satisfaction with life in general and different life domains which are rated on a scale from 1 (= couldn’t be worse) to 7 (= couldn’t be 4 better). They have been shown to yield practically identical SQOL scores38. Their reliability and validity have been demonstrated in several studies38-43 and they are widely used SQOL measures in mental health service research in Europe. Limiting the investigation to studies using one of these two measures was intended to have consistent data and fully utilise the advantages of a pooled analysis. Consistent information was available for the following socio-demographic and clinical characteristics hypothesized to be influencing SQOL: age, gender, marital status (married / partnership, other), level of education (to school level, to further level, to higher level; the exact definitions of each level varied to accommodate country-specific education systems) employment status (unemployed, other), type of current treatment (inpatient, outpatient), clinical diagnosis, and level of psychiatric symptoms. In the majority of studies (n=13), symptoms were assessed on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)44 or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS)45. This allowed for computing BPRS-18 total sum scores as well as sum scores of five BPRS-18 subscales: anxiety/depression, anergia, thought disorder, activity, and hostility. Statistical Analysis Stata 10 for Windows was used for all data analyses46. Linear mixed models were used to identify factors associated with subjective quality of life in different diagnostic groups whilst controlling for confounding factors, within-subject clustering of paired measurements and heterogeneity across studies using xtmixed and gllamm in Stata 1046, 47. In this three-level model, paired measurements (level-1) were treated as nested within patients (level-2), and patients nested within studies (level-3). Observations at level-1 were assumed to be missing at random. The modelling for identifying factors influencing SQOL proceeded through three stages. (1) Mixed models were fitted with SQOL scores as dependent variable and fixed effects adjusted for the time of measurement for the following set of independent variables: age, gender, marital status, level of education, employment status, type of current treatment, ICD-10 clinical diagnosis, and symptom level. (2) All fixed effects identified as statistically significant in stage (1) were entered into a multivariate mixed model adjusted for time point, country of residence, and time to follow-up as a priori confounders. (3) Two-way interaction terms for significant fixed effects x diagnosis were added one by one to the multivariate mixed model to establish whether the effects of factors influencing SQOL identified in stage 2 differed across diagnostic groups. Statistical significance of interaction terms was assessed using likelihood ratio tests to evaluate improvement of model fit. In all stages, heterogeneity of findings across the included study samples was controlled for using likelihood ratios to assess whether adding a random slope for the respective independent variables significantly 5 improved the model fit. Sensitivity analyses were performed on variables for which significant heterogeneity was identified by assessing whether statistical significance and magnitude of fixed effects were affected when omitting one by one those studies (a) with cross-sectional design, prospective-observational design, and RCTs, and (b) with small vs. large sample sizes (i.e. n ≤ 100)48. Results Included studies and samples Sixteen studies 30, 31, 34, 49-60 , including one unpublished study (Junghan et al. 2009, unpublished data), were included into the pooled data set. The characteristics are shown in Table 1. Twelve studies were observational, six each cross-sectional and longitudinal, and four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were from 34 sites in 17 European countries. Sample sizes ranged from 74 to 1055 patients. Table 1 also shows the SQOL scores of the patients in each study. Insert Table 1 about here From the 16 included studies, a total of 4478 patients were available for the pooled analysis. Of these, single assessments of SQOL mean scores were available for a total of 4285 patients. From the total sample patients with a main clinical ICD-10 diagnosis of an organic disorder (F0; n = 37), mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use (F1; n = 116), behavioural syndromes associated with physiological disturbances and physical factors (F5; n = 36), disorders of adult personality and behaviour (F6; n = 145), mental retardation (F7; n = 5), disorders of psychological development (F8; n = 5), behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence (F90-98; n=5), and those with unclear diagnosis (n = 492) were excluded. Hence, single assessments of SQOL mean scores were available for a total of 3936 patients with schizophrenia, schizotypal, or delusional disorders (F2, n = 2393), mood disorders (F3, n = 651), or neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (F4, n = 892). Paired assessments were available from 10 studies34, 49, 52, 53, 56-60 including the unpublished study (Junghan et al. 2009, unpublished data), with n = 2196 patients having complete SQOL mean ratings at two time points. The mean duration between the two assessments was 17.5 months (SD = 8.1, range = .89 to 44.7). 6 Patient characteristics and SQOL The mean age of patients in the pooled data set was 40.7 years (SD = 11.8), with a roughly equal distribution of gender (female, n = 1784, 45.4%). About half of all patients were unemployed (n = 1852, 49.1%) and educated to school level (n = 1196, 51.9%; to further level, n = 755, 32.8%; to higher level, n = 352, 15.3%). The majority of patients were unmarried or not living in partnership (n = 2452, 70.2%), being treated as outpatients (n = 2596, 66.0%), and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia (n = 2393, 60.8%; mood disorder, n = 651, 16.5%; neurotic disorder, n = 892, 22.7%). Mean symptom levels were moderate (mean = 36.5, SD = 10.5, range 18 to 91). Factors associated with SQOL Findings on the association of potentially influential factors and SQOL as dependent variable controlling for time point, within-subject clustering and heterogeneity of findings across studies are shown in Table 2. Insert Table 2 about here In these analyses, almost all variables were significantly associated with SQOL apart from gender, level of education, and service setting. There was a significant heterogeneity across studies for age, gender, diagnosis and symptom levels. Table 3 shows multivariate mixed models analysis for potential influential factors and SQOL as dependent variable. Insert Table 3 about here In this step of the analysis, age, employment status, diagnosis, and BPRS total and subscale scores were significantly associated with SQOL. All these factors were independently associated with SQOL. Older patients, those with employment, those with schizophrenia and those with lower symptom levels had significantly higher SQOL scores. All BPRS subscales were significantly associated with SQOL scores. With respect to diagnosis there was a significant heterogeneity of findings across studies. The sensitivity analyses showed that fixed effects for the differences between diagnostic groups remained statistically significant when omitting studies with different study designs. Including study design as a fixed effect into the model did not alter the statistical significance of the fixed effects for differences between schizophrenia and mood disorders (Standardized beta -.44, Unstandardized beta -.43, 95% CI -.54 to -.33, P < .001) or schizophrenia and neurotic disorders (Standardized beta - 7 .39, Unstandardized beta -.38, 95% CI -.51 to -.26, P < .001), with only minor attenuation in the magnitude of differences. However, when the model was re-fitted omitting studies with small sample sizes, the heterogeneity was not statistically significant anymore (χ2 = 5.15, P=.076). Given the heterogeneity of findings on diagnosis and SQOL across studies, all subsequent analyses were adjusted for this. Factors influencing SQOL in patients with schizophrenia and other disorders Interaction effects of diagnosis and factors identified as significantly associated with SQOL in the previous multivariate mixed model are summarised in Table 4. Insert Table 4 about here A likelihood ratio test showed an equally strong association of age with SQOL in all diagnostic groups (χ2 = 1.67, P=.434). However, there was a significant interaction for diagnosis by employment status (χ2 = 10.27, P = .006). The effects of unemployment were significantly weaker in patients with schizophrenia than in those with mood disorders (F3 vs. F2, P < .001) and neurotic disorders (F4 vs. F2, P < .001). There was no significant difference between patients with neurotic disorders and mood disorders (F4 vs. F3, P = .217), and findings on the interaction of employment status by diagnosis did not vary significantly across studies. Symptom levels were inversely related to SQOL in patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, and neurotic disorders. There was however a significant interaction effect for diagnosis by symptoms levels (χ2 = 6.78, P = .034). While higher symptom levels were associated with lower SQOL in patients of all diagnostic groups, the influence of symptom levels was significantly stronger in patients with neurotic disorders than in those with schizophrenia (F4 vs. F2, P = .009) and mood disorders (F4 vs. F3, P = .044). There was no such a difference between patients with mood disorders and schizophrenia (F3 vs. F2, P = .714). No significant heterogeneity of findings on the interaction of diagnosis by symptom levels was found across studies. Discussion Main findings The pooled analysis found more favourable SQOL scores in patients with schizophrenia than in groups with other diagnoses. It showed also higher SQOL scores in older patients, those 8 with employment and those with lower symptom levels. However, the findings suggest that the influence of factors other than age varies across diagnostic groups. The association of symptoms with SQOL was significantly stronger in patients with neurotic disorders than in those with schizophrenia and mood disorders. The influence of employment was significantly stronger in patients with mood and neurotic disorders than in those with schizophrenia. For only one influential factor, i.e. diagnosis, we found a significant heterogeneity of findings across studies. The sensitivity analysis suggested that this heterogeneity was not accounted for by the study design, but by an absence of significant differences between diagnostic groups in studies with small sample sizes. Strengths and limitations This is the largest study to date using a pooled data set to analyse factors influencing SQOL in patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders. The analysis considered both studies and individual patients as units of analysis. Overcoming some of the limitations of conventional meta-analytic techniques, the study therefore complements meta-analytical findings. Further strengths are that the sample size was sufficiently large for this type of complex analysis (although it varied for different analyses in this study), and that for the majority of patients the analysis included two assessments at different points of time to increase the precision of the findings whilst controlling for within-subject clustering. SQOL data and other characteristics were assessed with very similar methods and categories across all included data sets, so that potential inconsistencies of assessment methods were practically excluded as a source of heterogeneity. The study has four major limitations. All of them are related to the nature of the pooled set which was generated driven by the availability of data that has been collected with sufficiently consistent methods: A) We considered only studies using the LQOLP and MANSA. B) Not all patients included in each study were randomly selected to represent all patients in the given service. Selection biases might have influenced the levels of SQOL found in each diagnostic group. C) The number of factors in the analysis was limited. Further factors of potential relevance such as length of illness or details of current treatment were not considered. Such further factors might have explained the differences found between groups in this study. D) Only crude categories of each variable were analysed. Comparisons with previous research In this analysis patients with schizophrenia had more positive SQOL scores than patients with other diagnoses. This cannot be explained by possible differences in the considered sociodemographic characteristics or in symptom levels. The data of this study do not provide any 9 evidence for the possible reasons for this difference. One can only speculate whether patients with schizophrenia tend to adapt to the experience of living with their disorder in different ways than patients with other disorders2, 33. They might have lowered their expectations resulting in a higher satisfaction with life, found more appropriate methods to reach satisfaction in difficult circumstances, or be less prone to rate items in questionnaires based on negative emotions. The difference may also reflect schizophrenia-specific clinical characteristics such as emotional withdrawal or affective blunting, which may limit the impact of disorder-related dysfunction on SQOL and lead to higher ratings in this group33. Similar factors might also reduce the impact of symptom levels on SQOL in patients with schizophrenia, which in this study was weaker than in patients with neurotic disorders. Despite the specific differences between the diagnostic groups, higher symptom levels were associated with less favourable SQOL in all groups. This general association of symptom levels and SQOL is in line with previous research including the meta-analysis of Eack and Newhill29. It applies to all subscales of the BPRS, suggesting that SQOL ratings are influenced by overall levels of current illness severity. However, the subscale on depression and anxiety shows the strongest association with SQOL. This underlines the particular importance of such symptoms for SQOL ratings which has been repeatedly suggested in the literature2, 22, 33. Based on our findings, an increase of BPRS total scores of 8.1 (i.e. 1 standard deviation), corresponds to a decrease in SQOL mean scores of .23 in patients with schizophrenia (i.e. using the standardised coefficient in Table 4 and a standard deviation of .98), .25 in patients with mood disorders, and .42 in patients with neurotic disorders. Hence, the association of overall symptom levels with SQOL appears clinically relevant. When the influence of other factors was controlled for, marital status did not affect SQOL. It may be possible that positive and negative effects of living with a partner cancel each other out. The lack of an association of marital status and gender with SQOL is consistent with findings of the meta-analysis of Vatne and Bjoerkly17. Younger age and unemployment were associated with lower SQOL, also findings that are consistent with previous research. The influence of unemployment was weaker in patients with schizophrenia than in those with other disorders, again possibly linked to lower expectations or disorder specific cognitive and emotional processes of appraising an adverse objective situation. With respect to the methodology of the studies assessing SQOL, the pooled analysis reduced the effect of the heterogeneity of findings across studies by using the same statistical model. In the final model a significant heterogeneity was identified only for the variable diagnostic group. The sensitivity analysis showed that this heterogeneity of findings was explained by 10 the absence of significant differences between diagnostic groups in studies with small sample sizes. One may conclude that studies with small sample sizes tend to underestimate differences between diagnostic groups, whilst the study design does not make difference. Implications The factors identified in this analysis as being associated with SQOL explain only small amounts of variance. Whether such variance is important or not, is likely to depend on the type of intervention to be evaluated and the purpose of a study. Small differences in SQOL as an outcome can be very relevant in studies testing inexpensive interventions that can easily be rolled out across services58, or in evaluations of services in large populations. In such studies, analyses may adjust for the influence of the factors identified in this analysis. The factors may also inform the allocation strategy in experimental studies, e.g. stratifying a random allocation by age, employment status, diagnostic group and/or symptom level. In studies that aim to identify large effect sizes in SQOL the associations with influential factors reported in this analysis may be less relevant. The analysis identified factors influencing SQOL in mostly observational designs. Based on this analysis alone, no firm conclusions can be drawn about possible interventions for improving SQOL. Some evidence from the literature suggests that symptom improvement and employment schemes can lead to improvements of SQOL61, 62. One might hypothesize that such an effect may be smaller in patients with schizophrenia than in those with neurotic disorders, reflecting the difference in the strength of the influence of symptoms and employment status on SQOL between diagnostic groups found in this study. In any case the study can be used to estimate the gains in SQOL that may be expected in case of defined improvements of symptom levels. Moreover, the findings suggest that such estimates should be specific for different diagnostic groups and that not all findings of SQOL research can be generalised from one diagnostic group to others. Considering the more favourable SQOL in patients with schizophrenia as compared to other diagnostic groups, one may conclude that further improvements through therapeutic interventions are more difficult to achieve, and that a ceiling effect may be more easily reached. This should be considered in the evaluation of routine care when SQOL is used as an outcome criterion. Research studies evaluating interventions to improve SQOL in patients with schizophrenia might focus on patients with lower SQOL baseline scores. Including all those patients who already have a relatively positive SQOL may make it more difficult to detect significant effects of a tested intervention. 11 More specific research including qualitative studies may explore why patients with schizophrenia have more positive SQOL than other diagnostic groups, and why their ratings are less influenced by symptoms and employment status. Funding This work was supported by a Research Training Fellowship funded by the National Institute for Health Research (UK) to U.R. The report is independent research and the views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. 12 References (1) Priebe S, Fakhoury W. Quality of life. In: Mueser K, Jeste D, eds. The clinical handbook of schizophrenia. New York, US: Guilford; 2008. (2) Lehman A. Measures of quality of life among persons with severe and persistent mental disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemio 1996;31:7888. (3) Caron J, Lecomte Y, Stip E, Renaud S. Predictors of quality of life in schizophrenia. Community Ment Health J 2005;41:399-417. (4) Gaite L, Vazquez-Barquero J, Borra C, et al. Quality of life in patients with schizophrenia in five European countries: the EPSILON study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002;105:283-292. (5) Marwaha S, Johnson S, Bebbington P, et al. Correlates of subjective quality of life in people with schizophrenia. J Nerv Ment Dis 2008;196:87-94. (6) Sullivan G, Wells K, Leake B. Quality of life of seriously mentally ill persons in Mississippi. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1991;42:752-5. (7) Sullivan G, Wells K, Leake B. Clinical factors associated with better quality of life in a seriously mentally ill population. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1992;43:749-98. (8) Evans S, Huxley P, Priebe S. A comparison of the quality of life of severely mentally ill people in UK & German samples. Int J Soc Psychiatry 2000;46:47-56. (9) Lehman A. A quality of life interview for the chronically mentally ill. Eval Program Plann 1988;11:51-62. (10) Lehman A, Rachuba L, Postrado L. Demographic influences on quality of life among persons with chronic mental illnesses. Eval Program Plann 1995;18:155-64. (11) Roder-Wanner UU, Oliver JP, Priebe S. Does quality of life differ in schizophrenic women and men? An empirical study. Int J Soc Psychiatry 1997;43:129-43. (12) Mares A, Young A, McGuire J, Rosenheck R. Residential environment and quality of life among seriously mentally ill: residents of board and care homes. Community Ment Health J 2002;38:447-58. (13) Swanson C, Gur R, Bilker W, Petty R, Gur R. Premorbid educational attainment in schizophrenia: Association with symptoms, functioning and neurobehavioural measures. Biol Psychiatry 1998;44:739-47. (14) Herman N, Smith C. Mental hospital depopulation in Canada: patient perspectives. Can J Psychiatry 1989;34:386-90. 13 (15) Marwaha S, Johnson S. Schizophrenia and employment: A review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004;39:337-49. (16) Priebe S, Warner R, Hubschmid T, Eckle I. Employment, attitudes toward work, and quality of life among people with schizophrenia in three countries. Schizophr Bull 1998;24:469-77. (17) Vatne S, Bjorkly S. Empirical evidence for using subjective quality of life as an outcome variable in clinical studies: a meta-analysis of correlates and predictors in persons with a major mental disorder living in the community. Clin Psychol Rev 2008;28:869-89. (18) Bengtsson-Tops A, Hansson L, Sandlund M, et al. Subjective versus interviewer assessment of global quality of life among persons with schizophrenia living in the community. Qual Life Res 2001;14:221-9. (19) Bow-Thomas C, Velligan D, Miller A, Olsen J. Predicting quality of life from symptomatology in schizophrenia at exacerbation and stabilization. Psychiatry Res 1999;86:131-42. (20) Carpiniello B, Iai G, Pariante C, Carta M, Rudas N. Symptoms, standards of living and subjective quality of life: A comparative study of schizophrenic and depressed out-patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1997;96:235-41. (21) Galletly C, Clark C, McFarlane A, Weber D. Relationships between changes in symptom ratings, neuropsychological test performance and quality of life in schizophrenic patients treated with clozapine. Psychiatry Res 1997;72:161-6. (22) Huppert J, Weiss K, Lim R, Pratt S, Smith T. Quality of life in schizophrenia: contributions of anxiety and depression. Schizophr Res 2001;51:171-80. (23) Kasckow J, Twamely E, Mulchahey J, et al. Health-related quality of wellbeing in chronically hospitalized patients with schizophrenia: comparison with matched outpatients. Psychiatry Res 2001;103:69-78. (24) Lehman A. The effects of psychiatric symptoms on quality of life assessments among the chronic mentally ill. Eval Program Plann 1983;6:143-51. (25) Meltzer H, Burnett S, Bastani B, Ramirez L. Effects of six months of clozapine treatment on the quality of life of chronic schizophrenic patients. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1990;41:892-7. (26) Mueser K, Douglas M, Bellack A, Morrison A. Assessment of enduring deficit and negative symptom subtypes in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1991;17:565-82. (27) Priebe S, Roeder-Wanner UU, Kaiser W. Quality of life in first-admitted schizophrenia patients: a follow-up study. Psychol Med 2000;30:225-30. 14 (28) Sim K, Mahendran R, Siris S, Heckers S, Chong S. Subjective quality of life in first episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders with comorbid depression. Psychiatry Res 2004;129:141-7. (29) Eack S, Newhill C. Psychiatric symptoms and quality of life in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2007;33:1225-1237. (30) d'Ardenne P, Capuzzo N, Fakhoury WK, Jankovic-Gavrilovic J, Priebe S. Subjective quality of life and posttraumatic stress disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 2005;193:62-5. (31) Rakib A, White PD, Pinching AJ, et al. Subjective quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Qual Life Res 2005;14:11-9. (32) Rudolf H, Priebe S. Subjective quality of life in female in-patients with depression: a longitudinal study. Int J Soc Psychiatry 1999;45:238-46. (33) Atkinson M, Zibin S, Chuang H. Characterizing quality of life among patients with chronic mental illness: a critical examination of the self-report methodology. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154,99-105. (34) Ruggeri M, Gater R, Bisoffi G, Barbui C, Tansella M. Determinants of subjective quality of life in patients attending community-based mental health services. The South-Verona Outcome Project 5. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002;105:131-140. (35) Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B, Scheuchenpflug T, Friedenreich C. Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28:1-9. (36) Reininghaus U, Priebe S. Assessing morale in community mental health professionals: a pooled analysis of data from four European countries. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2007;42:237-43. (37) Oliver J, Huxley P, Priebe S, Kaiser W. Measuring the quality of life of severely mentally ill people using the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1997;32:76-83. (38) Priebe S, Huxley P, Knight S, Evans S. Application and results of the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). Int J Soc Psychiatry 1999;45:7-12. (39) Gaite L, Vazquez-Barquero J, Arrizabalaga Aea. Quality of life in schizophrenia: development, reliability and internal consistency of the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile - European Version. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177 (Suppl 39):s49-s54. (40) Kaiser W, Priebe S, Barr W et al. Profiles of subjective quality of life in schizophrenic in- and out-patient samples. Psychiatry Res 1997;66:153-66. (41) Kaiser W, Priebe S. [Measuring changes in subjective quality of life in chronic schizophrenic patients]. Nervenarzt 1998;69:219-27. 15 (42) Nieuwenhuizen Cv, Schene A, Koeter M, Huxley P. The Lancashire Quality of Life Profile: modification and psychometric evaluation. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2001;36:36-44. (43) Ruggeri M, Warner R, Bisoffi G, Fontecedro L. Subjective and objective dimensions of quality of life in psychiatric patients: a factor analytic approach. Br J Psychiatry 2001;178:268-75. (44) Kay S, Fiszbein A, Opler L. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1987;13:261-76. (45) Overall J, Gorham D. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Sclae (BPRS): recent development in ascertainment and scaling. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:99. (46) Stata Statistical Software, Release 10. [computer program]. Stata Corporation, College Station; 2007. (47) Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A. Reliable estimation of generalized linear mixed models using adaptive quadrature. The Stata Journal 2002;2:121. (48) Higgins S, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. (49) Burns T, Creed F, Fahy T. Intensive versus standard case management for severe psychotic illness: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353:2185-9. (50) Eklund M, Hansson L, Bejerholm U. Relationships between satisfaction with occupational factors and health-related variables in schizophrenia outpatients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2001;36:79-85. (51) Hansson L, Middelboe T, Merinder L, et al. Predictors of subjective quality of life in schizophrenic patients living in the community. A Nordic multicentre study. Int J Soc Psychiatry 1999;45:247-258. (52) Hansson L, Bjorkman T, Priebe S. Are important patient-rated outcomes in community mental health care explained by only one factor? Acta Psychiatr Scand 2007;116:113-8. (53) Kallert TW, Priebe S, McCabe R et al. Are day hospitals effective for acutely ill psychiatric patients? A European multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2007;68:278-87. (54) McCabe R, Priebe S. Explanatory models of illness in schizophrenia: comparison of four ethnic groups. Br J Psychiatry 2004;185:25-30. (55) McGuire-Snieckus R, McCabe R, Catty J, Hansson L, Priebe S. The development of a new Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship (STAR) in community mental health care. Psychol Med 2007;37:85-96. 16 (56) Priebe S, Gavrilovic J, Schuetzwohl M, et al. Rationale and method of the STOP study - study on treatment behaviour and outcomes of treatment in people with post-traumatic stress following conflicts in Ex-Yugoslavia. Psychiatry Today 2002;341:145-159. (57) Priebe S, Hoffmann K, Isermann M, Kaiser W. Do long-term hospitalised patients benefit from discharge into the community? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2002;37:387-92. (58) Priebe S, McCabe R, Bullenkamp J et al. Structured patient-clinician communication and 1-year outcome in community mental healthcare: cluster randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2007;191:420-6. (59) Roder-Wanner UU, Priebe S. Objective and subjective quality of life of firstadmitted women and men with schizophrenia. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 1998;248:250-8. (60) Slade M, McCrone P, Kuipers E, et al. Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental health services: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006;189:330-6. (61) Burns T, Catty J, Becker T, EQOLISE group. The effectiveness of supported employment for people with severe mental illness: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:1146-52. (62) Leucht S, Barnes T, Kissling W, et al. Relapse prevention in schizophrenia with newgeneration antipsychotics: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:1209-1222. 17 Tables Table 1. Study characteristics of the 16 included studies Study Study sites Roeder-Wanner & Priebe59 Research design SQOL Measure1 LQOLP SQOL (baseline) mean (SD) 4.52 (.75) LQOLP 4.25 (.74) 676 417 Cross-sectional LQOLP 4.69 (.75) Eklund et al.50 Priebe et al.57 London (UK) Manchester (UK) Malmoe (Sweden) Landskrona (Sweden) Umea (Sweden) Copenhagen (Denmark) Roskilde (Denmark) Arhus (Denmark) Turku (Finland) Bodo (Norway) Reykjavik (Iceland) Malmoe (Sweden) Berlin (Germany) Prospectiveobservational RCT 74 100 LQOLP LQOLP 4.23 (.72) 4.65 (.79) Ruggeri et al.34 Verona (Italy) 389 LQOLP 4.57 (.90) Zagreb (Croatia) Belgrade (Serbia) Sarajevo (Bosnia) Rijeka (Bosnia) London (UK) London (UK) London (UK) London (UK) London (UK) Granada (Spain) Groningen (Netherlands) Lund (Sweden) Mannheim (Germany) Zuerich (Switzerland) Umea (Sweden) Stockholm (Sweden) Falkenberg (Sweden) Boras (Sweden) Eskilstuna (Sweden) Sollentuna (Sweden) Osteraker (Sweden) London (UK) Dresden (Germany) London (UK) Wroclaw (Poland) Michalovce (Slovakia) Prague (Czech Republic) Bern (Switzerland) 493 Cross-sectional Prospectiveobservational Prospectiveobservational Prospectiveobservational MANSA 3.44 (.81) Burns et al.49 Hansson et al.51 Priebe et al.56 McCabe & Priebe54 d’Ardenne et al.30 Rakib et al.31 Slade et al.60 Priebe et al.58 Hansson et al.52 McGuire-Snieckus et al.55 Kallert et al.53 Junghan (unpublished data) 1 Berlin (Germany) Sample size n 89 124 110 69 133 447 Cross-sectional Cross-sectional Cross-sectional RCT RCT MANSA MANSA MANSA MANSA MANSA 4.43 (.85) 3.13 (.85) 4.11 (.69) 4.25 (1.00) 4.70 (.88) 129 Prospectiveobservational LQOLP 4.33 (.77) 111 963 Cross-sectional RCT MANSA MANSA 5.12 (1.39) 3.96 (.92) 133 Prospectiveobservational LQOLP 4.72 (1.11) LQOLP, Lancashire Quality of Life Profile; MANSA, Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life 18 Table 2. Univariate mixed models analysis of potential influential factors and SQOL as dependent variable a Fixed part Random partb Total Study-level Level-1 Influential factor n Standardized Unstandardized Beta studies P random intercept residual Beta (95% CI) variance variance Age Female vs. male Level of education To school vs. further level To school vs. higher level Married/partnership vs. other Unemployed vs. other Outpatient vs. inpatient care 15 16 10 3806 3928 2303 12 15 16 3493 3771 3936 ICD-10 clinical diagnosis Mood disorders vs. Schizophrenia Neurotic disorders vs. Schizophrenia BPRS-18 total score Depression / anxiety subscale Anergia subscale Thought disorder subscale Activation subscale Hostility subscale 16 3936 .05 .02 .004 (.0002 to .007) .02 (-.06 to .10) .04 .03 .12 -.33 .05 .04 (-.04 to .12) .03 (-.08 to .13) .12 (.05 to .18) -.32 (-.38 to -.25) .05 (-.07 to .17) .036 .587 .606 .322 .611 <.001 <.001 .441 .195 .223 .060 .331 .334 .353 .149 .278 .236 .332 .334 .334 <.001 .189 .336 Study-level random slope variancec Heterogeneityc .001 .011 - χ2 = 12.91, P = .002 χ2 = 6.73, P = .035 χ2 = .96, P = .619 - χ2 = 2.17, P = .338 χ2 = .14, P = .935 χ2 = .86, P = .650 χ2 = 45.37, P <.001 -.35 -.34 (-.42 to -.26) <.001 .296 -.82 -.80 (-.87 to -.73) <.001 .178 11 2397 -.30 -.03 (-.04 to -.02) <.001 .068 .358 .001 χ2 = 24.83, P < .001 11 2397 -.36 -.09 (-.10 to -.07) <.001 .032 .358 .001 χ2 = 12.16, P =.002 11 11 2397 2397 11 2397 -.09 -.12 -.05 -.25 -.024 (-.049 to .001) -.03 (-.04 to -.02) -.02 (-.04 to -.01) -.10 (-.14 to -.07) .058 <.001 .004 <.001 .095 .089 .281 .073 .361 .361 .365 .359 .002 .001 .005 χ2 = 10.53, P =.005 χ2 = 6.96, P = .031 χ2 = 1.87, P = .392 χ2 = 22.07, P < .001 a Estimates are adjusted for time point Patient-level random-intercept variance was of trivial magnitude and is therefore not shown here Heterogeneity of findings across studies was tested using likelihood ratio tests to assess whether inclusion of random slopes improved model fit. Random slopes were not included into the model when likelihood ratio tests were not significant. b c 19 Table 3. Multivariate mixed models analysis of potential influential factors and SQOL as dependent variable (8 studies, 2063 patients) a Fixed part Random partb Study-level Level-1 Study-level Influential factor Standardized Unstandardized beta P random intercept residual random slope beta (95% CI) variance variance variancec .160 .356 Age .075 .006 (.003 to .009) <.001 - χ2 = .75, P = .194 Married/partnership vs. other .06 .06 (-.03 to .14) .173 - χ2 = 0.01, P = .999 Unemployed vs. other ICD-10 clinical diagnosis Mood disorders vs. Schizophrenia Neurotic disorders vs. Schizophrenia BPRS-18 total score Depression / anxiety subscalec Anergia subscale Thought disorder subscale Activation subscale Hostility subscale -.17 -.17 (-.25 to -.09) - χ2 = .01 P = 1.00 -.49 -.43 -.250 -.357 -.059 -.101 -.051 -.194 -.47 (-.58 to -.37) -.42 (-.54 to -.29) -.024 (-.027 to -.020) -.079 (-.088 to -.070) -.017 (-.028 to -.006) -.026 (-.037 to -.016) -.022 (-.038 to -.006) -.074 (-.087 to -.060) <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .007 <.001 .130 .049 .002 - χ2 = 7.30, P = .026d .131 .0001 .198 .201 .169 .356 .197 .358 .358 .356 Heterogeneityc χ2 = .72, P = .198 χ2 = 5.14, P = .012e χ2 = .01, P = .460 χ2 = 2.55, P = .055 χ2 = -99.92, P = 1.00 χ2 = .44, P = .255 a Estimates are adjusted for time point, country of residence, and time to follow-up Patient-level random-intercept variance was of trivial magnitude and is therefore not shown here c Heterogeneity of findings across studies was tested using likelihood ratio tests to assess whether inclusion of random slopes improved model fit. Random slopes were not included into the model when likelihood ratio tests were not significant. d Sensitivity analysis for fixed effects for ICD-10 clinical diagnosis: Study design: Omission of cross-sectional studies (P<.001), prospective-observational studies (P<.001), RCTs (P<.001) Sample size: Omission of studies with n≤100 (P<.001), n>100 (P=.392) e Sensitivity analysis for fixed effects of BPRS depression / anxiety subscale: Study design: Omission of cross-sectional studies (P<.001), prospective-observational studies (P<.001), RCTs (P<.001) Sample size: Omission of studies with n≤100 (P<.001), n>100 (P<.001) b 20 Table 4. Multivariate mixed models analysis of factors influencing SQOL in schizophrenia, mood disorders, and neurotic disorders (8 studies, 2063 patients)a Random partb Fixed part Influential factor Standardized beta Unstandardized beta (95% CI) P ICD-10 clinical diagnosis x employment status Study-level random intercept variance Level-1 residual variance .177 .357 Study-level random slope variancec Heterogeneityc Unemployed vs. other Schizophrenia -.105 -.102 (-.192 to -.012) .026 - Mood disorders -.823 -.802 (-.978 to -.626) <.001 - Neurotic disorders -.659 -.642 (-.852 to -.431) <.001 - ICD-10 clinical diagnosis x BPRS-18 total score .176 χ2 = 0.01, P = .999 .356 Schizophrenia -.237 -.022 (-.026 to -.019) <.001 - Mood disorders -.257 -.024 (-.034 to -.015) <.001 - Neurotic disorders -.429 -.041 (-.054 to -.027) <.001 - χ2 = .01, P = .469 a Interaction terms were added to the previous adjusted multivariate mixed model using a likelihood ratio test for assessing their statistical significance Patient-level random-intercept variance was of trivial magnitude and is therefore not shown here Heterogeneity of findings on interaction terms across studies was tested using likelihood ratio tests to assess whether inclusion of random slopes improved model fit. Random slopes were not included into the model when likelihood ratio tests were not significant. A random slope for diagnosis was always entered into the model to control for the previously identified heterogeneity of findings across studies for this variable b c 21